Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Why does OSC tolerate you on this board? (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Why does OSC tolerate you on this board?
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Less so; saying that America lost because an election occured is madness.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except he demonstrably has not done the same or worse. You may easily consider him less reasonable, but you cannot argue that his attacks are more vitriolic or out-of-line. Read carefully what he actually says.

When he says something like "smarty-pants" it conveys some meaning. It suggests that the person that he's talking about thinks he's smarter than everyone else around. While you might not agree with the characterization, it is still relatively civil. One could clearly apply the same moniker to OSC, but that is beside the point.

In the case of this post, we hear that Card is a "wanker" - really? What meaning is that conveying? This is mindless, insofar as it bypasses any information.

Then he claims to know better why Card is upset than Card does himself. Turns around and then accuses Card of "vast stupidity" and being a "mindless cheerleader".

Card has often stated why he supports the war. The fact that many disagree with him doesn't make him "vastly stupid" - to suggest that one's position on one issue makes someone vastly stupid is either crazy or unreasonable.

One could just as easily say that Trudeau is "vastly stupid" or "mindless" - except that the article says neither of those things.

The article in question attempts to draw parallels to other examples from history, and break down the statement made by Trudeau point-by-point. Hardly the ravings of a lunatic.

That he gets some of his facts wrong and engages in fanciful speculation on other points hardly invites such language or characterization.

In fact, the worst I see in that article - which was one of the worst in terms of crossing the line of civility - is:

quote:
he is in fact far smarter than his critics, and he is a far better President than any of their darlings like the moral cretins and intellectual stumblers that ran against him in 2000 and 2004, or the supposedly brilliant Rhodes Scholar do-nothing who preceded him for eight years of breathtaking incompetence in foreign affairs.
Lamentable. I'd certainly prefer that this not be included in his work. It is perfectly reasonable to disparage such statements.

But how will you be able to do that, if you engage in the same questionable tactics?

Anyway, I've now allowed myself to be drawn into that which I said I wouldn't. If anyone would like to explore this issue with me, they may contact me privately.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Except he demonstrably has not done the same or worse. You may easily consider him less reasonable, but you cannot argue that his attacks are more vitriolic or out-of-line."

I can't? I certainly CAN argue that his attacks are more vitriolic and out of line... because they ARE. They are AWFUL, Drake, downright AWFUL.

I'm looking at the most recent world watch.

Some example of incivility on OSC's part...

"For instance, in Connecticut, the voters rejected the extremist wing of the Democratic Party (otherwise known as "The Democratic Party") by reelecting Joseph Lieberman, the most notable (but not the only) Democrat who has the brains to understand that the War on Terror is vital to our national security."

"That is, unless the new crop of quasi-Republican Democrats were pulling a Bill Clinton and lying about their principles in order to get elected. We'll find that out soon enough -- if they vote just like other Democrats, then we'll know they were liars, because they promised not to."

"And the new Congress does not have a majority to force a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

This is obviously true, because Joseph Lieberman is the crucial vote, and he knows we cannot afford to do anything so stupid, so contrary to our interests and inimical to our allies in the Middle East (of which we have many, despite the claims of opponents of the war)."

"There are also too many Democrats in the House who come from districts where a vote for forcing a troop withdrawal on a timetable (i.e., "surrender") would be the end of that Congressman's career.

The trouble is that the people of Iraq don't know that. They only know what our anti-Bush media tell them, which is that our election was an enormous defeat for Bush's war policy, and what their anti-American media tell them, which is that our election was an enormous victory for Al-Qaeda and the Sunni insurgents (a.k.a. murderers and terrorists) in Iraq."

"But now, because of the way our election has been portrayed, the Shiites no longer have any trust that America will remain. They think -- wrongly -- that the American people favor a cowardly, selfish retreat from a policy on which the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds have staked their lives."

"And it looks like anybody in Iraq with any money at all is buying plane tickets and getting out of the country.

All because shortsighted, ignorant, or malicious "anti-war" Democrats misled the American people into thinking our war effort was a failure and was doing no good. The result is that now our war effort is failing, not because of President Bush, but specifically and directly because of the Democratic victory."

"People are dying now in Iraq, and fleeing the country as well, because the Democrats won, and because this victory is being universally interpreted as a sign that Americans will skedaddle from Iraq the way an early generation's Congress betrayed South Vietnam."

"Democrats must speak up -- now. It is too much to expect the Congressional Democratic leadership to act in a statesmanlike way -- if they were capable of such a thing, then the election would not have been about the war at all, since they would have been in support of at least its general aims."

"So what we need, immediately, is press conferences from brave Democrats who know that we cannot afford to lose this war -- or cowardly Democrats who know they cannot get reelected if we lose this war.

They must declare in clear and forceful terms that they will not vote to withdraw American troops until the job is done."

"The liberal extremist press in America (a.k.a. "the press") will hate it, but they will report the accurate vote counts -- the fact that there is not a majority for betrayal of pro-democracy Iraqis by withdrawing our troops prematurely. (They will report them because the blogs and Fox News will report the facts.)"

"Get up on your feet, Democrats! Prove that you deserve the trust of the American people. Prove that you are capable of thinking beyond immediate politics.

Prove that you actually care that people are getting killed because you were elected, and tell them that they must go back to trusting in democracy -- and in American support for democracy.

It's time to repudiate the platitudes of the fanatical, fantasy-believing radical Left"

"From this moment on, if we come to defeat in Iraq, it will not be President Bush's fault. It will be, completely and exclusively, the fault of the Democratic Party. And it is the responsibility of the Democratic Party -- or at least the saner members of that party -- to speak up and do all they can to prevent that defeat."

I'm sorry, drake, but the man is an absolute partisan hack. How you can defend him as being

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
HAve to agree with E.

It is like his book, Empire, whch is supposedly about the threat that incivility and polariation brings---


And then offers the most hateful, unrealistic view of anyone left of Pat Buchanon.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm sorry, drake, but the man is an absolute partisan hack.
And there are dozens of free hosting services where you could say that.

It's one thing to disagree with him. It's another to insult him frequently across two of his forums. Do you really need to do it?

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thing that's always been unclear to me is why folks read essays they can count on hating, and then comment on them, sometimes regularly, and almost always vituperatively on the man's own site.

I mean, I find very little to agree with, enjoy, or even make sense of in many of the Front Page essays....so I don't read them. It's one thing to seek out other points of view, it's another to read pointed opinion pieces written in a tone I don't enjoy regardless of the subject matter or slant of the piece.

I also see no value and no honor in toilet-papering the man's house at his expense. I would like to think if some issue were so vital that I needed to rebut it, and that it were important that I do it on his own site, I'd find a way to do it without resorting to juvenile practices. You don't actually have to call someone a doody-head to refute their position, and you don't have to use those actual terms to show that someone is a doody-head, for that matter, if for some unfathomable reason that's really important to you.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hving enjoyed so much of his writing, and in general respecting his intellect, it is--

disapointing? frustrating?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It's one thing to disagree with him. It's another to insult him frequently across two of his forums. Do you really need to do it?"

I don't know. Does Card really need to make money by insulting me? I figure he can't be losing more money from me insulting him then he's making by insulting me. So he wins on the arrangement.

And as long as he's making money off of me, I definetely feel like I should be able to take shots back at him for the shots he took, unprovoked, at me.

[ December 09, 2006, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And as long as he's making money off of me, I definetely feel like I should be able to take shots back at him for the shots he took, unprovoked, at me.
Why would you want to? It reminds me of the unending conflicts in the middle east. What do you gain out of taking shots at him?
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know. Does Card really need to make money by insulting me? I figure he can't be losing more money from me insulting him then he's making by insulting me. So he wins on the arrangement.
He doesn't. If I recall correctly, he doesn't get paid for the Rhino Times articles, and both boards cost more than they make.

quote:
And as long as he's making money off of me, I definetely feel like I should be able to take shots back at him for the shots he took, unprovoked, at me.
Yes, but you violate the user agreement of both boards to do so. Does your word mean so little to you?

Also, do you mean making money off you because you buy his books? Or does he somehow make money off you by your posting here?

[ December 10, 2006, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"He doesn't. If I recall correctly, he doesn't get paid for the Rhino Times articles, and both boards cost more than they make."

I really doubt he doesn't get paid for the rhino times articles. Having had a couple of my columns published by local newspapers before, I've been paid for them. Not a LOT, but I've been paid for them. And I know other people who have written columns for newspapers get paid for those, too. Someone with OSC's name is more likely to get paid them I am.

"Yes, but you violate the user agreement of both boards to do so. Does your word mean so little to you?"

*Shrug* Giving your word is only important if it means something to the person receiving it. Apparently, Card doesn't give a rats ass about me, and in fact feels free to call me names, so I feel no compunctions about going back on an agreement I made with him in certain ways.

"Also, do you mean making money off you because you buy his books?"

No. I mean that he makes money by publishing attack columns against me and other people like me.

I received an interesting email last night, that I'm sitting on in my head right now. We'll see whether I change how I post about card or not, but if I do, it won't be because I've changed my mind about him, or about whether or not its morally wrong for us to insult him.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh*
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I really doubt he doesn't get paid for the rhino times articles.
You're doubts aside, he definitely doesn't get paid for either the reviews or his reviews:

quote:
I earn absolutely nothing (unless you count bile) for either column; but then, I don't earn anything for teaching at SVU, either.
So what's your justification now that you know he's not "making money off you"?

quote:
*Shrug* Giving your word is only important if it means something to the person receiving it. Apparently, Card doesn't give a rats ass about me, and in fact feels free to call me names, so I feel no compunctions about going back on an agreement I made with him in certain ways.
He's not violating his agreement with you. If you think he's not someone to whom it is worth keeping your word, you can end the agreement by not posting here. Or, you could keep your word, continue to post here, and find some other place to post your insults about him.

I think a lot of people are taking advantage of the fact that, while OSC's moderators can and generally do enforce the agreement well to protect other people from insults,* any attempt enforce the agreement with respect to all but the most egregious anti-Card violations will quickly result in stories that he's "censoring" his fans.

*Although, it seems, not from insults aimed at millions of people, some of whom are posters, instead of individual posters. But it's probably useless to try to fight that fight again.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So what's your justification now that you know he's not "making money off you"?

I have no trouble beleiving he's lying or in some way misrepresenting the amount of money that comes in through his work about what he gets paid for his work, dagonee, since he's done just that in his columns for years. And I've NEVER heard of a professor who does not get paid, which is another claim OSC makes in the post you link to.

Its possible I'm wrong, but it would take evidence from someone other then OSC to convince me of that.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I have no trouble believing that your ongoing attempts to justify your rude and promise-breaking behavior are becoming even less convincing as you go on.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Confused]

The value of keeping my word has nothing to do with whether other people value it.

I could see refusing to participate in this site, due to taking offense at OSC's positions as expressed in WW, but I can't see reneging on my word because of it. And I honestly have a hard time believing that any of my fellow Ornerians sincerely feel that way.

Is it your position, Ev, that OSC has engaged your agreement to conduct yourself with civility on these boards under false pretenses, as a result of the opinions he expresses and the manner in which he expresses them in his WW essays?

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think Everard's behavior is any more rude than OSC's.

As for violating the TOS, if responding to OSC in kind is violating the TOS, then I urge people to just ignore him. We all know he isn't listening to 'the other side' except when it is convenient for him to paint them as stupid, morally corrupt, etc.. We all know his arguments are bereft of support and make logical fallacies left and right. The proper thing to do is just ignore them. If anyone questions why his stuff only gets glowing reviews on this side, just point them to this thread and move on.

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is Crazy Uncle Orson a public figure?
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ngthagg
Member
Member # 2737

 - posted      Profile for ngthagg         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I don't think Everard's behavior is any more rude than OSC's."

And I don't think it is any less rude.

Everard, you complain about OSC engaging is wild speculation and insulting you. And then you turn around and do exactly the same thing to him.

You said: "I have no trouble beleiving he's lying or in some way misrepresenting the amount of money that comes in through his work about what he gets paid for his work, dagonee, since he's done just that in his columns for years. And I've NEVER heard of a professor who does not get paid, which is another claim OSC makes in the post you link to.

Its possible I'm wrong, but it would take evidence from someone other then OSC to convince me of that."

Or in other words, you made a claim about OSC (that he gets paid for writing his columns) without checking your facts. When you are shown that OSC has declared the exact opposite to your claim, you state (still without evidence) that he is lying.

Why should any of us take any of your comments on OSC seriously when you have shown us that you are willing to do exactly what you criticize OSC for doing?

ngthagg

Posts: 487 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should any of us take any of your comments on OSC seriously when you have shown us that you are willing to do exactly what you criticize OSC for doing?
Because Ev's behavior is independent of his criticisms. Just because some people do not condone his behavior does not mean his criticisms are not warranted.

Does anyone believe that Mr. Card's essays are the paragon of civility, treating people with opposing viewpoints with respect? If so please speak up because the silence heretofore has been deafening.

The first way you lead is by example. It's Mr. Card's site and I believe his writings set the tone for the community ethos.

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As it's been enforced, and as I understand it and believe most other posters understand it, speculating about the motives of Public Figures and political groups is not the same as speculating about the motives of fellow posters.

We don't seem to have much of a problem when someone speculates about the motives of President Bush, or Mrs. Clinton, or the Supreme Leader of Iran, or Ted Koppel or Rush Limbaugh.

Either he is fellow poster, and he should follow his own rules, or he is a public figure, and we are not restricted in the same way we would be in adressing a fellow poster.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even that analysis doesn't save many of the more rude things said about OSC here, Jesse.
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Were OSC a member, many of the things said here about him would be considered out of line. I don't think I've seen anything said about him here that wouldn't be permitted if aimed at a "public figure;" certainly we've seen as much vitriol aimed at Bush and Clinton as we have at OSC. It's clear, though, that OSC does not think of his articles as posts; he doesn't consider that his articles, which are generally very insulting, violate the terms of the site. And since he does not post in any other way, the question becomes: does paying for the site make OSC more of a "member" than a "public figure?" If so, why?

I'm not sure that's something that can be answered authoritatively for all people. In general, though, I think it's good practice to avoid calling ANYONE a lying idiot, whether they're a public figure or a forum regular.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KnightEnder,

As you know AI-Jane was formed because a number of members got banned briefly from here and set up that forum out of their collective pique. I have read the AI-Jane forum in the past - and it didn't seem to offer much in the way of quality commentary or argument.

quote:
If I recall correctly, he doesn't get paid for the Rhino Times articles, and both boards cost more than they make.
Hmm I'd doubt the 'cost more than they make' - he should be well above break even for a text discussion board with google ads and the volume of viewership that he has. The only thing that would be a significant expense might be if he has a full time web admin for some reason.

Ev,

personally I feel that your response is counter productive - why 'take shots' all it does is make people lose respect for you and your arguments. Also I don't agree with your rationalization that it is 'justified' because he 'makes money off of you'.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do think that OSC is a special case. While strictly speaking he falls under the same rule as other public figures, I am transfixed by the tackiness of not just criticizing him on his own site (which is perfectly legitimate and even implicitly invited) but doing so in a vicious, name-calling fashion.

While his own essays for the Rhino Times are often terribly insulting to and about those who disagree with him, I don't believe that responding in worse kind is a compelling counter-argument. If someone calls me a doody-head, my calling him a s***head in turn doesn't get me a win. And it's bad form.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have to agree with that. I'm probably guilty of that a little. As I said upthread, as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to stop.

[ December 11, 2006, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mormegil
Member
Member # 2439

 - posted      Profile for Mormegil         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
*Shrug* Giving your word is only important if it means something to the person receiving it.
Wow. That's straight out of the mouth of a fictional villain, right after he's betrayed the protagonist, who he considers inferior in some way, and therefore doesn't have to keep his word.

It's like white folks not keeping their promises to the Indians, because after all they're just savages.

It's a cliché in fiction, an infuriating one, because it's so blatantly unjust and immoral, and yet the person doing it feels completely justified. And of course, it got to be a cliché because historically, people really have acted this way.

I guess I'm just not used to people admitting it.

Posts: 800 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Besides the rule about multiple log ons (and possibly an understanding against posting an ad in the threads), there is really only ONE rule about conduct:

quote:
Personal attacks, mockery, or speculation about the motives of people posting here are not allowed, and such posts will be removed without notification. Repeated offenders will be banned from the site.
What I find interesting is the concept that I am the group I associate with. How many insults and broad brushed attacks have been hurled at "religious people" or "neo-cons" on this forum? Have we banned anyone for calling Bush or Saddam an idiot (they are both my uncles [Wink] )? Have we banned anyone for calling Catholics or Muslims idiots? I dare say we haven't (but the Mods may correct me).

Do I have a right to respond personally and say that you are an idiot who is worthy of a painful experience because you insult a group I identify with? That would remove everyone's ability to say anything inflammatory (which may be a good thing I suppose) since anyone here thinks of themselves as belonging to this or that belief set. If we can take offense at anything said about anyone (think about what was said about black youth just a while ago) we would soon ban a vast portion of our citizenry whom we enjoy (most of the time anyway [Big Grin] ).

As much as individuals want to confuse the rules, there is really a difference by singling an individual out and condemning the group one belongs to. Revenge is an interesting argument for leveling personal attacks, but until OSC insults you personally you are trying to create some kind of equivalency which doesn't exist. Feel free to say that Mormons, folks from Greensboro, etc. are idiots for holding a specific belief (though it will only weaken your credibility amongst us); but to insult an individual is against the rules and should be enforced. I agree with Javelin and Funean that OSC should be considered a fellow poster, especially since he IS (he has a logon and everything).

If you feel the need to insult OSC personally, send him an email; doing so here brings down the forum and it drives away others who do not appreciate that tone.

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So here is what I am suggesting; since most of us old timers (four years and still haven't reached 1000 posts) are the ones that have the most to lose, let's change the tone of the forum.

Most old timers don't fly off the handle at OSC when he writes a new column. The newcomers are the ones that generally do that. What I would like the most is if when newbies show up and level insults instead of demonstrating intelligent critical thinking; we let them know that such behavior is inappropriate but we would welcome them if they instead abided by the rules. Too often we have rather welcomed them by joining in the bad behavior and letting them know our disdain for a fellow poster (and we criticize Hatrack for being juvenile?).

Do you that take offense from OSC only want individuals who agree with you to post here? Is this an exclusive club that only those who hold a disdain for our host can join? I would rather it be an exclusive club for those who can be civil than one for those who hold the required belief set.

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As much as individuals want to confuse the rules, there is really a difference by singling an individual out and condemning the group one belongs to.
My PERSONAL opinion is that there shouldn't be, and that conversations on this board would be both more civil and more enlightening if there were not, but YMMV.

quote:
Feel free to say that Mormons, folks from Greensboro, etc. are idiots for holding a specific belief...
I have every reason to believe that if someone were to insist that Mormons were idiots for holding a specific belief, they would be banned. There are certain groups which posters here can get away with belittling, although of course there probably shouldn't be; there are other groups which posters cannot escape censure for criticizing.

More to the point, though, if someone posted nothing but diatribe after diatribe about how all Republicans were drooling idiots, the board would start out by regularly critiquing his posts, and then eventually -- especially if he did not acknowledge that criticism -- move to belittling and ignoring him. I believe this is what has happened to OSC; since he does not acknowledge the valid criticism of his hyperbole, a number of posters on this board now treat him as being beneath their notice.

I am NOT saying, by the way, that they should treat him as being unworthy of respect or civility. But I know that I certainly don't take OSC's political opinions any more seriously nowadays than I take, say, the medical opinions of that guy who posts about the longevity benefits of eating raw organ meats.

--------

That said, Kent, I agree with the broader thrust of what you're saying. Ornery would only improve if we made it clearer what was and was not acceptable behavior. I think the weird Mod situation here contributes to that confusion.

For my part, though, I have the interesting distinction of having actually been personally insulted by OSC, and do not intend to make a habit out of defending him until he someday apologizes. I still come down on the occasional outrageous newbie, but I'm much more likely to intervene when someone's slandering a forumite who a) actually posts here and b) hasn't insulted me to my face.

[ December 11, 2006, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good for you Tom. You are probably the only one who does have a "personal" relationship with OSC in this sense, and you are a bigger man for moving on. Hey, you haven't been banned yet!
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kent, I would never call you a little sniveling weasel.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only because you haven't seen a picture of me yet. My children are especially repulsive.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While I like to think that my criticisms of OSC are always addressing his words and not his character, I have posted some very scathing reviews of the former. Mostly I just ignore his columns now, but occasionally I am roused to speak against him, as I did recently in the Trudeau thread. And I can tell you exactly why:

I don't bother to post at Hannity.com, or on Rush's site, or to harass Drudge or any other vitriolic pundit. Why bother? The difference with OSC isn't that his posts are better or worse (honestly, his arguements are so cookie cutter movement conservative that they could have been written by any of the former, as evidenced by Rush reading on on air). No, the difference is that OSC has repeatedly demonstrated that he is capable of deeply nuanced, fair and rational arguments, namely his novels, and to a lessor degree, his afterwords. Most of us are hear because of our appreciation of said novels, so this community in particular is very sensetive to disappointment when OSC chooses to be unfair, intellectually dishonest and vitriolic.

I know that personally, when I go after OSC, what I really want is for the author of Speaker for the Dead to explain to me why his essays are so mean spirited and vicious. I want the same person who persuaded me to see positive value in religious communities whose doctrines I oppose, I want THAT guy to explain why his essays insist that I, personally, am stupid, dishonest, and evil. Any one else, and I wouldn't care. It bothers me from OSC because I respect him, or at least his work. Its like discovering some awful secret about your favorite uncle.

And while this point has been made a 1000 times before, its worth repeating: this has NOTHING to do with his views. I read what Kent said about his conversation with the Cards, and its pretty obvious that they have no idea why people complain about OSC. The occasional fly-by flamer may go off on OSC's opinions, but those of us who "live" here are pretty consistantly clear about the fact that its his demonization of opponents that we find so objectionable; that and, frankly, his willingness to write inaccurate or just plain false statements if they serve his agenda. And I've noticed that even his supporters here don't defend against specific criticisms anymore, because it simply isn't possible. Calling Monica Lewinsky underage, for example. Instead, people resort to vague "you shouldn't complain about OSC because he owns this site" types of defenses. We'll speaking for myself, I don't ever intend to attack Card's character or his motives, because I know nothing about them. However, when he posts something untrue, or makes a dishonest argument (see the recent Democrat victory thread), then I reserve the right to point out exactly why its dishonest or false, or inconsistant with his previously stated views.

I have always maintained that I respect OSC for the fact that he has yet to either close down this site or try to moderate its content in favor of his positions. If he decides to close it down because of opposing viewpoints, I will likely conclude that he got tired of walking the walk. And as much as I like all of you, I can live without you (though I would of course be interested in meeting at a new locale). In other words, if we, as Kent suggests, were to censor our opinions to spare the feelings of OSC, then this would not be a place worth visiting any longer. Free speech is either free, or it aint.

That said, there certainly are a class of attacks on OSC that are inappropriate, and would be regardless of who the target was. These do seem to be fly-bys for the most part, but vitriolic name calling and disparaging OSC's views without any substantive rebuttal are simply a waste of broadband. I'm just not clear on which type of criticism is being assailed here.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kent:
Only because you haven't seen a picture of me yet. My children are especially repulsive.

Thanks for the coke all over my keyboard, Kent!
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't suggest that you censor your opinions to spare OSC's feelings. Free speech is free speech. Slander is slander. I am against slander and speculating on motives.

Examples:
quote:
In other words, Treaudu's barbs against the war and its conduct piss Orson off because he knows they're right on, and because Orson in his vast stupidity has turned himself into a mindless cheerleader of the war and the president. Tough.
quote:
In OSC's case, he has become rich as a writer, so he thinks he is smarter than the people who read what he writes.
quote:
If previous columns of his are anything to go by, that's a classic sign that Card's got nothing and is just flailing around with recycled rhetoric in a desperate attempt to convince his readers (or perhaps himself) that if you just think about it hard enough you'll see that the state of affairs today really is just how George Bush wants it to be
quote:
Card's a lying political hack. I'm still not sure why we read his essays?
quote:
I see no way to avoid the conclusion that Card is not merely misinformed or foolish, but a deliberate liar (no doubt in what he sincerely believes to be the greater cause of his own idea of what American policy should be.)
Anyway, that is really just a sampling from a few threads I picked at random. Most posts which disagree with him are more or less civil and deal with issues rather than the person. That is all I ask.

[ December 11, 2006, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Kent ]

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am copying this here from the related thread on Hatrack so that people here will be aware that there is indeed no plan to scrap Ornery at present. I will alsoe copy this to the thread on the other side of this forum.

quote:
kacard
Administrator
Member # 200

- posted December 11, 2006 01:17 PM

And after our lovely conversation, Kent, you had to punish me with irate emails from people? Thanks so much [Smile] Please pass the word on Ornery, there is absolutely, positively, no such plan.

Kristine Card



[ December 11, 2006, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Dave at Work ]

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Kent, really am old man, but you seem to have done more to upset and annoy the Cards than the random fly-bys or even the few regulars who vicously attack him.

You made dishonest statements, and then played them off as a "joke". Not an honorable thing to do, IMHO. I didn't take you seriously, and I won't again. You have proven that you are not to be trusted and that no statement of yours should be taken at face value unless otherwise confirmed.

I'm sorry Ornery is a far less pro-Rebulican place than it was a few years ago, but then, so is America.

General-

On the clarification note : I call him Crazy Uncle Orson with a smile and shake of the head.

I can't help the fact that I like the guy, even though he writes some stuff that makes me, well, boggle.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse, I'm glad you realized how pointless it really is to take me seriously. Everard tried to warn you back in September:

quote:
Kent doesn't actually debate. He just tries to be humorous. It was pointed out to me some time ago that responding seriously to him is a waste of time.
Wise. Very wise.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC: "Kent? He makes me laugh."
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1